"The kind with trigger discipline..."

I'm a noob leftist. Maybe a reformed (reforming?) liberal. I am anticapitalist.

I don't think a 19th century European necessarily devised the perfect economic system. Maybe we don't have to be obliged to label ourselves by which 19th century European we agree with the most. There are a lot of people smarter than me who know more than me who disagree with each other, I don't know if we can move society in my lifetime enough that the difference between anarchism and communism will make a huge public policy difference. I'm more concerned with stopping fascism and working for universal healthcare.

I just want people to have food, shelter and healthcare at an affordable price.

Idk. The kind where I believe that every adult over 18 should be given 80m2 by the government. Apartment, office space, storage space, workshop, lab, whatever.

I believe that you shouldn't need to worry about a place to live at the bare minimum, and I believe that not having space for people to use and experiment with is one of the main hindrances of economic development (development, not "growth")

You know those means of production?

Well I have an idea...

I wish there was a test.

Not a bullshit CosmoBuzzfeed quiz, but an actual "if you answered A on these three questions, you tend towards MarxoCapitalist. Here's a community full of people who mostly agree with you about political stuff."

We'd still have Home and Local and All, but it'd be nice to know who my people are instead of needing a college degree to navigate the bullshit everyone says about everyone else.

I don't think anyone knows what socialism is.

Never ask a Lemming what kind of leftist they are, or what is the best Linux distro.

Nah bruv, this is bullshit. I'm straight up a centrist. It's just that anyone who isn't goose-stepping fascist swine is "leftist" these days. Shit has just moved so far right, it's fucking insane. Back in the day, repubs would agree with me about minding your own fucking business and let people live the way they fucking want. They'd agree with me that you need to pay for shit, instead of just charging it to your kids. Which also means you need to prioritize shit, and it better nothing be for fucking moneybags over there. Bring back fucking Eisenhower-era taxes, FFS. Those cunts used to believe in free speech and freedom FROM religion. There used to be some common ground. These days? Fuckem. They can all choke to death.

https://youtu.be/LWkSB-D-hYo

"You leftists sure are a contentious people"

What kind am I?

Not a neo liberal or a Tankie.

I'm in-between. I'm caring enough to not agree with Conservatives and want a change to the status quo. I'm educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can't be free and other people won't do stuff for free. Capitalism has its place, but needs to be highly regulated.

marxist-linuxist

Anti-Conservative

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

• Frank Wilhoit, American Composer, 2018

Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.